STAS
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied the motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and took the motion for a preliminary injunction under advisement.
Plaintiff filed a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Preliminary Injunction. The court noted that TROs are for preserving the status…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Ex Parte Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Pro se Plaintiff Michael Stas' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. [fn 1] (Doc. 7). For the below reasons, the Court denies the request for a TRO and takes under advisement the request for a preliminary injunction.
The primary difference between a TRO and preliminary injunction is that a court may grant a TRO motion without notice to the opposing party or an opportunity to be heard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)-(b). Accordingly, TROs "should be restricted to serving their underlying purpose of preserving the status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a [preliminary-injunction] hearing, and no longer." Granny Goose Foods, Inc.
v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974).
Plaintiff initiated this action on July 29, 2025. (Doc. 1). Defendant has appeared, and service of Plaintiff's summons and complaint is unnecessary under Rule 3 of the Supplemental Rules for Social Security Action. (Docs. 6, 8). Given this posture, the immediate ex parte relief provided by a TRO is inappropriate. See Swiler v. RSJ Ventures, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00661-SPC, Doc. 39 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2025); Harley's Hope Found. v. Harley's Dream, No. 22- CV-0136-WJM-STV, 2022 WL 824415, at *1 (D. Colo. Mar. 18, 2022). The Court denies the TRO request and takes the preliminary-injunction request under advisement.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 7) is DENIED in part as to its request for a TRO. The request for preliminary injunction remains under advisement.
2. On or before August 26, 2025, Defendant must respond to
Plaintiff's request for preliminary injunction.
3. The Court will set a preliminary-injunction hearing by separate notice.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on August 12, 2025.
Sheri Polster Chappell
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies: All Parties of Record
[fn 1]: Plaintiff previously filed a motion seeking similar emergency relief. (Doc. 3), which the Court denied. (Doc. 7).